The reformer reformed: or, A second part of The errors of Hopkinsianism detected and refuted: Being an examination of Mr. Seth Williston's "Vindication of some of the most essential doctrines of the reformation."

Front matter

\iy.

lis

'4»

Preface

Custom has estabhsbed the propriety of assigniog reasons for presenting publications to the world.

The sermons of Mr. Williston were considered a direct assault upon our doctrines; and to repel that assault, the Errors of Hopkinsianism was written and published. Although a commencement in this controversy on our part, might be considered a needless intrusion upon the public attention ; yet, wc think that defending ourselves when assailed, is perfectly justifiable. Who will say we ought silently to look on while our antagonista are wielding the sword of controversy over our heads ? This consideration then, of acting on the defensive, is offered as aij apology, if an apology for defending the truth be necessary, for continuing this polemical discussion.

• Though excited simply from a sense of duty to publish the Errors of Hopkinsianism, in doing it, the author felt all that fear and diiEdence, which the irr^^tancc of the subject, a consciousness of his inability to do it justice, and the prospect of exposing himself, under many disadvantages to the eye of a criticising world, were calculated to impress. The favourable reception however which that little performance met with by the kind partiality of friends, and theiuAvard satisfaction resulting from a conviction of having acted under the influence of an honest desire to promote the cause of divine truth, amply compensate for any disagreeable s^sations growing out of the circumstances of the case, and afford no small consolation and support. For, notwithstanding the many imperfections of that work, it met with a sale quite bevond expectation, and was treated with greater kindness than was anticipated. Some, to be sure, have handled it rough enough ; for, if report may be relied on, a certain clerical gentleman, was instrumental in committing some copies of it to the flames. An honourable end I But Mr. Wiiliston has published a professed reply to that book ; and, I am sorry to say, he has manifested less impartiality in tlie statement of our doctrines, and in Lis manner of defending his own, than he djd in his sermons. To correct his

IV I'REFACE.

erroneous statements, to defend the truth ag-ainst the onsets of error, and to detect the fallacy of his arguments, with a view to promote the honour and glory of God, whose sacred cliaracter appears so completely shrouded in darkness hy the sentiments of our antagonists, have been the leading objects which have drawn forth the following work. It is hoped that the like inaccurracies, which, notwithstanding all the care that was taken, appeared in the former publication, may be avoided in this.

But, being more and more convinced of a liability to mistake, the reader's indulgence is begged for any he may discover, and he is requested to let them find an apology in that common frailty x>f human nsitiire, the fallibility of human judgment. But while mercy is asked for the manner in which the present work is executed, none is sought for the doctrines stated and illustrated. Iftheycanbe slain by scriptural and rational argument, let them die under its lacerating strokes. The reputation of an obscure individual, or the character of any particular sect, however numerous and respectable, are considerations of small importance, when compared to the developement, and the perma^ Dent establishment of the tremendous truths of God. With a direct view to promote experimental and practical godliness, these truths should be the stf^reme object of every man's pursuit. If any inferior object had induced the author to intrude himself upon the public attention, and especially to disturb the tranquihzing waters of the Christian world at the present time, with the pen of controversy, he would merit the severest censure.

It may, however, be objected, that the prevailing disposition among the several orders of professing Christians to unite in thegrand work of spreading the gospel, ought to preclude all controversies of this kind. So far, indeed, as this disposition is founded in Divine love and Christian harmony^ it should be cherished by every possible medtis. Were the several denominations of Christians, to agree in laying aside, in respect to contending for them, each their peculiarities, and unite in recommending to the lost world the grand fundamentals of Christianity, it would be a most desirable event. But the time has not yet arrived for such a union to take place ; although it is apparent that much of that bigotted claim to exclusive discipleship is declining. The mere accession, however, of nominal

PREFACE. V

converts (o the Christian cause, only tends to diminish the peculiar glories of the Christian character. But can our antagonists, who cordially approve of Mr. W's book, in which he stigmatizes us with the opprobrious epithet of Satari's ministersy be sincerely desirous of uniting with us ? Do they want to range under the banners of Christ, the minions of the black prince of darkness ! Let none talk of union with us, who reiterate this smoky calumny with so much Christian gravity.

Or do they expect us to submit in silence, while they are flaying us alive with such unmerciful strokes ? However gratifying it might be to them to have the undisturbed privilege of assailing us in this rude manner, calling us 'The seed of the serpent spitting out all our venom,'* let them not mock us by pretending it is to persuade us to union. AV'e are not to be thus cajoled out of our religious principles. Does one dominant party vociferate uniori ! for the purpose of making all others subservient to its monopolizing designs ? It is devoutly to be wished that none are actuated by such unworthy motives.

Deprecating this evil, as one of the worst of human evils, it maj' be observed, that, so far as a true gospel union is sought, the present author would be the last to put the smallest barrier in the way of its attainment. Let those who so loudly plead for union, come forward in the spirit of brotherly love, and, by sacrificing \.\\e\T peculiar sentiments, agree with their brethren in preacliing tlie grand fundamental doctrines of the gospel; and the author, for one, promises to meet them upon this ground, and to unite in extending the influence of divine truth.

Until the period arrives for such a union to take place, we must be permitted to defend ourselves against the invasive assaults of our theological adversaries; feeling perfectly satisfied that our doctrines should be tested by the closest investigation. Though diffident cf cur own strength, yet we are so confident that we have truth on our side, that we doubt not but it will support and defend us.

Under this impression the following pages have been written. To answer every objection which may have been raised, was impossible without extending the work too far. The principal features, however, of Mr. Williston's doctrine, and the princi-

*See the Rev. JUr. Sj)ring''s sermon on Elution, p, 39. A 2

VI PREFACE.

pal arguments employed in its defence have been considered* It is probable that some of the strictures may seem severe. They appear so, indeed, to the author ; but he knew not how to avoid them. Some of Mr. W's. assertions were apparently so opposite to truth, that it was found extremely difficult to reply to them, and still preserve the appearance of christian meekness and moderation. The author has however, chosen the softest terms he could to convey his meaniag. If he has been betrayed into the use of any which the occasion cannot justify, he humbly asks pardon of God, and of all good men. May God send his blessing with this imperfect attempt to illustrate and

defend His sacred truth.

N. BANGS.

N. B. That the reader might readily distinguish between quotations from Mr. W.'s book, and those from other authors, the latter are distinguished by single^ and the former by dmdtle commas.

Introduction

It may be necessary to inform the reader, that in the year 1810, while travelling on the Albany circuit, circumstances occured which induced the author to engage in a public debate with the Rev. Mr. Benedict, Presbyterian minister in Franklin, Delaware County, on the points of doctrine now under consideration. This debate was conducted in the Presbyterian meeting-house, in Durham, of which congregation Mr. Seth Williston is the officiating minister. Being present at the debate, and doubtless feeling a lively interest in its final result, he afterwards published his volume of Sermons, in which he attempted a vindication of the peculiar doctrines of Calvinism and Hopkinsianism ; in doing which he also attempted a refutation of some of the doctrines taught by the Methodists. Viewing some of the sentiments of Mr. Williston, not only erroneous in themselves, but as having a pernicious tendency ; and also conceiving our doctrines not fairly exhibited by Mr. W. I felt myself under obligation to attempt a detection of what was considered heterodox in his sermons ; and for the sake of giving the public a just perception ©f our sentiments, to rectify some of his mis-

Vlll INTRODUCTION.

takes. This was done in six letters addressed to that gentleman, entitled the " Errors of Hopkinsianism detected and refuted." He has published a reply to my book, which he calls a "Vindication of some of the most essential doctrines of the reformation." As he has produced some scriptures which were not before noticed, and advanced some arguments, not before considered; and as the subjects appear very important in themselves, taking them all into the account ; it is thought necessary for the vindication of the truth to attempt a second refutation of the errors of Hopkinsianism.

THE

MEFOMMER MEFOEMEPa

CHAPTER L

On universal divine agency and efficiency.

JVIr. Williston's first section is entitled, "A vindication of the doctrine of divine decrees; being a reply to objections raised against this doctrine in Mr. Bangs' first letter." This title has a very imposing aspect. His readers must certainly infer that we deny the doctrine of divine decrees, whereas we as fully believe them, as he can. Perha})s, however, this title was only designed to preengage the reader in favour of the arguments which were to follow. But the question between us is, What are divine decrees ? He maintains that they comprehend every thing that ever did, or ever will lake place, in heaven, earth, or hell : that all those things are not only decreed, and are according to God's will and pleasure, but are actually brought into existence by God him&elf. This proposition we deny. And that the reader msy be able to decide on which side of the question the truth lies, 1 shall endeavour,

1. To explain those scriptures which are generally brought in su))port of that proposition.

2. To reply to some of Mr. Williston's arguments with which he has attempted its vindication.

3. To attempt its refutation by scripture and rational argument. But O my God, who is sufficient for these things ! Touch thou my heart with celes-^ tial fire, that it may glow with an ardent love for the truth. Enlighten thou my understanding, that to the " height of this great argument, I may assert a gracious providence, and justify the ways of God to man." May the irradiating beams .of eternal truth so shine into my soul that, loosing sight of self, and my antagonist as a man, 1 may perceive the superlative excellence <?f divine truth, and follow its attractive charms wiiferever it may lead.

1. And first, let us attend to those passages of scripture which have been adduced to prove that God excites man to moral evil. That we may have a clear understanding of them, it is important to notice the relation in which God is represented as standing to man. He is not only represented in the character of Creator, Legislator, Governor and Father, but also as a Judge, and as being in some sense the executor of his own decrees.* This is especially the case in respect to his conduct towards nations, and the nation of Israel in particular. As they had been selected from the other nations of the world to be his covenant people, he is represented as presiding over them as their Governor, and as ruling over them as their King, and as deciding upon their moral conduct as their Judge, But this sovereign au<^ thority was not restricted to the Israelites. As nations cannot be judged, rewarded and punished in

* By the decrees of Ood in this connexion, we understand his just and immutable purpose in so overruling' the conduct of his obedient and disobedient people, by limiting", restraining-, .and directing- its final result, so far as is consistent with man's freedom and responsibility, as to make it serve for the developement of his own most glorious character, and the good of those who love him. So far as our opponents in this controversy, contend for the operation of divine decrees in thus overruling mankind, even the designs and dispositions of the wicked, we entirely agree with them : but when they insist, as Mr. W. has done, that God works efficiently upon the human heart for the production of evil desires, wicked designs, and furnishes men with means to execute their nefarious purposes, we beg leave to dissent from them, for the reasons assigned in this chapter.

the future world in their national capacity, God exercises his executive authority over them in this world ; using for this purpose one wicked nation as an instrument of his vengeance upon another. But how strange would it be, to infer from these facts, that God by^fdrcc of his decree, made these people wicked, that he might have an opportunity of displaying his sovreignty in their punishment. This erroneous representation of the divine character and conduct, is exposed in my first letter to Mr. W. p. 19.

Considering God in his executive capacity, as deciding upon the character and conduct of nations, and as executing upon Them his own decrees as a punishment for their wickedness, we may have an easy and rational interpretation of those scriptures which speak of his employing them as instruments of his holy indignation against those nations which had provoked him to anger by their unnecessirated rebellions. ' But Sihon, king of Heshbon, would not let us pass by him ; for the Lord thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day.' Deut. ii. 30. It is apparent from a parallel narrative of this event in Numb. xxi. 21 — 30. that the reason why the Lord hardened the spirit of that king was, on account of his former wickedness ; for which God now designed to destroy him by the instrumentality of the Israelites, who acted, in this instance, as the scourge of God, We may also behold in this transaction, a just reaction of divine providence, in thus punishing this wicked prince, who had, at a former period, made unjust depredations upon a neighbouring nation, the Moabites, and dispossessed them of their cities and lands : and now, to punish him for his predatory warfare, Sihon is dispossessed of his cities and lands by the Israelites. An awful lesson to those proud and haughty nations, whose venality prompts them to plunder others, merely because they have power to do so. In the same way, and for the same reasons, did God commission Joshua to exterminate the devoted nations who inhabited the land of Canaan, The cup of their iniquities was now full, the whole land was polluted by their abominations, and therefore God determined to purify the land, by destroying its wicked inhabitants by fire and sword. But what a dark shade would be cast upon the character of the Holi/ One of Israel, to infer from these circumstances, that he first decreed, and then excited by his own agency those nations to commit all their abominations ; and that these abominations were perfectly pleasing to him ; and that he nevertheless punished them in this exemplary manner, for having fulfilled his decree, and for having done his pleasure ! Similar conduct manifesting itself in any man would stamp his character with everlasting infamy. First make them sinful ; and then punish them for being so ! Alas, that ever such a representation should have been given of God's most sacred, just and merciful character. It is enough to make one's blood chill even to think of it. Deliberately to assert it, and gravely to attempt to prove it, appears to us, to the last degree shocking and blasphemous.

* O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation. I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread (hem down like the mire of the streets. Hovvbeit, he meaneth not so ; neither doth his heart think so ; but it is in his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few.' Isa. x. 5 — 7. In this instance also, the Lord manifests his character as a righteous King, who is about to execute his indignation upon the hypocritical nation of Israel ; and finding the Assyrian monarch a fit instrument to execute his purpose, he uses him for that end. Hence in ver. 15. he is compared to the axe and saff in the hands of the carpenter, whom God used to hew and sever the Israehtes for their wickedness against him. — But in what a contemptible light would he appear, were we to suppose that he decreed and excited the Israelites to their hypocrisy and also the Assyrian to his wickedness ; and then sent the latter to punish the former for their sins ! Let those believe this who can.

Mr. Williston has a good remark upon this circumstance, were it not that it contradicts his leading principle, it would answer him a good purpose. " The action of going to Jerusalem to do mischief, and to seek plunder, was exclusively the action of this ambitious monarch ; but his going there as a rod is ascribed to the God of Israel." p. 32. This certainly is a necessary distinction. But how does it coincide with his doctrine ? This text he brings to prove thai all things are brought about by God's asjency : and if all thijigs are brought to pass by his agency, were not the action and motive of going to Jerusalem to do mischief and to seek plunder, included among the all things ? Or were this motive and this action, yw thing? no event, no effect? If Mr. Wiiliston's doctrine be true, the design and action of the Assyrian monarch, were as much decreed, and as much according to God's pleasure, as was his going ihere as his rod^ the staff of his indignalion. If, however, Mr. W. design to make this exception, he thereby gives up his doctrine of universal divine agency ar-.a efficiency.

Now, if the motive and disroi«ition of this king were decreed, and brought into existence and operation by the exciting agency of God, how could he have been any more responsible for ihemj than the

B axe or saw in the hands of the carpenter ? These are the insuperable difficulties attendant on Mr. Williston's principle of interpretation : all which are completely obviated by admitting that this king, by an abuse of his moral power, uninfluenced to do it by divine agency, made himself wicked ; and that the people of Israel also, abusing their high privileges unnecessarily, had merited this chastisement ; to inflict which God now employed the Assyrian monarch, as a scourge in his holy hand ; and then, to punish him for his wilful and unnecessary wickedness, for his lofty pretentions, the Lord 0/ hosts shall stir up a scourge for him according to the strength of Midian at the rock of Oreh, See Isa. x. 5 — 24. This view of the subject exhibits a righteous King in the Lord of hosts, setting in judgment on these two hypocritical nations, passing sentence of condemnation upon them for their evil conduct, and finally executing his just decision by such means as his infinite wisdom and goodness saw fit to employ for that purpose.

That text in Rev. xvii. 17. 'For God hath put it into tiieir hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God be fulfilled,' admits of a similar interpretation. It is no part of the present enquiry, who is meant by the beast. It is more important, to remark, for the vindication of God's sacred honor, that these kingdoms, having become wicked by an abuse of their free moral agency, to punish them for it, God put it into their hearts, to givt their kingdom to the beast to fulfil his will. When nations become opulent and proud, they generally become luxurious ; this paves the way for effeminacy, which renders them, not only objects of divine indignation on account of their accumulated guilt, but also an easy prey to their enemies : and now having forfeited the protection of God by their wickedness

•

and falling into the hands of their enemies ; the Lord is said to deliver them up, and to employ their depredating enemies as the rod of his indignation to punish a disobedient and gainsaying peO' pie.

In all these, and many more similar instances in which God is represented as hardening the hearts of kings, and as using them as instruments of his indignation, we may behold a righteous sovereign, exemplifying his distributive justice in the punishment of nations, (and also those individuals whose elevated stations in society rendered it necessary to punish them in this exemplary manner,) for their wilful aberrations from the laws of eternal truth and righteousness. A human judge, acting in his official capacity, pronounces sentence of death upon a murderer ; and the law orders him executed by some person appointed for that purpose : This is a righteous act ; and it is in no sense inconsistent with that law which enjoins us to love our Reighbour as ourselves. But to say that this judge, (supposing him to have had power to do so) forced this man to murder by a decree or otherwise ; and then punished him for so doing, would be the foulest impeachment of his character. And it would be equally ungenerous to say, he influenced the man to comm.ii the horrid sin of murder, merely because he executed the law upon the murderer. So it is altogether improper to say that the Judge of all the earth, excited and influenced those wicked nations to be guilty of moral evil, merely because he. exercised his judicial authority upon them, for being so. God will finally sit in judgment upon the incorrigibly wicked, and consign them to the region of eternal misery, for having abused their distinguished privileges ; but must we infer from this fact, that he foreordained that they should be wickcdy and that he, by his own agency, influenced them to sin, that he might have an opportunity of punishing them with hell fire ? The thought is too shocking to be indulged for a moment. But we might, with as much propriety, infer this, as to conclude that because God in some instances has judicially hardened wicked monarchs, and employed them as ministers of his righteous vengeance upon others, who made themselves objects of his displeasure by their reiterated crimes, that he also influenced them to commit those crimes. If the reader will make use of the above principle, he will, it is believed, have a key that will open all the locks which calvinistic decrees have invented, to shut up the wards which guard the temple of truth. He may then pass safely along, without being frightened with the view of a being who has bolted all the doors of mercy against Hopkinsian reprobates, by the polished steel of Si moral inability: and who threatens them with everlasting destruction for not doing an impossibility.

The principle of interpretation above laid down will obviate the difficulty suggested by Mr. Williston r^pecting what he calls my concession, in admitting that God sends the sword, to punish cities and kingdoms devoted, in consequence of their wickedness, to destruction. Upon this he observes, p. 44, " I also conclude, that if it does not appear inconsistent that God should send a man to break his commandments, (as the wicked Sennacherib evidently did) it will not appear inconsistent that he should purpose to send him." Here, and indeed in all he has said in this and the following page to reconcile his doctrine, which asserts that the purposes and commands of God are opposed to each other, and to common sense, he takes for granted, that when God uses one wicked nation to punish another wicked nation, that he sends them to break his commandments. But when a murderer is executed, is the law violated ? Does the man who executes its penalty, violate, by that act, its jjrecepts ? Nay, does not the judge who pronounces sentence, and the man who sees it executed, obey the law as muf h as those who avoid murder ? And if they refused to decide and execute, would not they themselves be as much viobtcrs of law, as the man who commits murder ? God's righteous law passes sentence of condemnation upon those who violate its precepts ; and, as before observed, as nations cannot consistently be judged in a future state, in (heir national capacity, God is represented as sitting in judgujcnt on them in this world: and, in the execution of his righteous sentence, he employs those agents, whom he seeih fit to choose ; but in executing this righteous decision, do they violate God's commands ? or, does he send them to break his commandments ? Certainly not. His command is. He that sheddeth mail's bloody by man shall his blood be shed, Gen. ix. 6. His commands, or his revealed will, require that those nations who hsive Jilled up the measure of their iniquities, should be destroyed ; and the instruments of his justice^ who are sent to excc»ite his righteous decrees upon such devoted nations, are executing his command^ meats; that is, they are, in obedience to the immutable law of heaven's high couit of justice, fulfilling the unalterable counsel of God : for so runs this counsel — ' Those mine enemie«, who would not that 1 should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.' There is then no kind of opposition between this counsel of eternal wisdom and justice, and God's commandments, which require us to love one another. Are we to suppose that those angels, who, in the final day of decision, execute the righteous sentence of the judge of ail the earth, by so doing "break the commandments of God ? Neither do those ministers of God's iaflex-

B 2 ible justice, who are sent to punish nations justly devoted to destruction for their wickedness, break his commandments. They are executing their awful penahy, in obedience to God's revealed decrees. What a tottering system must that be, which forces its advocates, in attempting its vindication, to set the decrees cindcom7nands, the purposes and will of God at variance ! Which represents God .as decreeing, SLiid bringing to pass what he has /brhidden, and prohibited by an express command* We sincerely pity the.raan, who, to defend his doctrine, is driven to such a desperate assault upon the consistency of God's sacred character and government.

From p. 37 — 48 of my book, I undertook so to explain those passages of sacred scripture which speak of the crucifixion of Christ, as to make them harmonize with the uniform design of revelation,' which is to vindicate God from being the author of sin : and also to rescue them from the improper service into which they have been pressed, when employed to prove that God decreed, and, by his own agency, influenced the Jews in their inhuman and murderous conduct towards our divine Saviour.

Mr. Williston has professed to reply to my arguments on that subject. 1 do not wish to repeat what has been already said, and therefore refer the reader to the abovementioned pages of my book, and to what Mr. W. has said in reply. See p. p. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. of his book. It is proper, however, to remark, that he has taken an easy leap over the strength of my arguments upon that subject, and left the most pointed scriptures untouched.* So

* In respect to Luke xxii. 22. Mr. W. has noticed the error in the criticism on the Greek word n^icrjusvoy. But although that pavticiple is in the passive voice, preterite, it by no means affects the argument in favour of refering the determination there spokeo of to Judas and the Sanhedrim ; for we may read far therefore, 1 consider the arguments good, and unanswerable.

it tlius, Trtdy the Son qfJiJangoeth as it haih been determined. While therefore I acknowledge an unintentional mistake, (and which was discovered verj^soon after my book was printed, but too late to correct it,) 1 still think there is no necessity ofsupposing- the deterviinei^m that particular case, was God. The whole context forbids such a conclusion.

In reg-ard to Acts iv. 27, 28. I am fully convinced that the translation given of that text in my book is correct. That we ai e not alone in this sentiment, is evident from the following French translation: — Car en effet H6rode et Ponce Pilate, avec les Gentils et le peuple d'lsrael, se sont assembles contre ton saint Fils Jesus, que lu as oint, Pour fair toutes les choses que ta main et ton conseil avoient auparavant determine devoir dtre faites ; of which the following is an accurate translation — For in effect (or in truth) HeroJ and Pontjus Piiate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, assembled themselves against thy holy Son Jesus, whom thou hast auointed, To do the things which thy hand and counsel had before determined should be done. Here the nominative to the verb to do is Thy Holy Son Jesus — who was anointed of God the Father to do all the things, the miracles and works which he performed. See the French Bible, printed by the JVewVork Bible Society. W hen 1 quoted the French version of Acts xiii. 43. 1 did not think it necessary (o inform my readers "that the New Testament was not first written in the French language," because 1 did not suppose any one believed it was : Mr. VV. however, has done this for me ; and therefore it is needless to remind the revider that the above quotation in French dress is not designed for the original : it is only intended to slicw that we are not singular in contending for that translation of the original Greek. Those who understand French will do me the justice to acknowledge, that I have not misrepresented that version of the text.